hotShot

Given the right input and enough computer power GIB and other programs are able to find and make the move most likely to succeed, based on the statistical data they get from simulating similar deals. If the input data are insufficient, the set of possible distributions GIB gets from applying the known facts as restrictions, is much bigger than it could be, using all available inferences. So the set often includes deals that are not similar to the deal being played, and statistical data taken from this set are misleading GIB. Typical examples are GIB going wild during the auction and leads. After the dummy is visible, GIBs knowledge of the deal gets better, leading to fewer glitches.

1♠<3♥<<dbl And the winner is East.

3♦

A (long) while back, someone posted a Link to Python program to convert lin to pdb. Read more at: http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...&hl=lin++python

Ken what you say applies to the suit distribution between the hands and to the pattern of a single hand. You know your hands shape and dummies shape, if you additionally know something about LHO or RHO's length in one suit you can combine those informations, did you take that into account?

Do you know about Cascade's LinConverter?

If partner had 6+♥'s he could have transfered, if partner had 4-5♥ he could have bid 3♥ over openers 3♦. Over 3♥ opener can show a 4c[CP] bidding 3♠. Partner could have transfered to ♠ with (5)6 cards or bid 3♠ to show 4-5♠. So 4♥ does not show ♥'s. But if you did not agree how to transfer to minors, and you fear that 4♣ over 2NT could be misunderstood as Gerber, responder has no good bid to show minors. Opening and Puppet took away a lot of bidding space, rising ♦ (note that opener could have only 2♦) to 4♦ is not a move towards slam, 5♦ is likely to end the auction. A direct 4NT over 3♦ is undefined. Responder holds the minors, he could bid that way without having a 3cM. ♥ should be single or void. Opener has the choice to bid and play NT or ♣ with only 2♦, cue-bid ♠ for the ♦ slam, sign of in 5♦.

Flash used to be a platform to display vector graphics, that evolved over little animations to interactive graphical applications. Java has always been a platform for system- and browser independent programs based on a very good security concept.

1♠ followed by 4♣ over partners 1NT

Acol is a great system to learn bridge. (But the teacher and his way of teaching is much more important.)

Do you really think that there is a pair or team playing (plain) SAYC at the BB? An why shouldn't we do it just for fun?

There are 2 different questions to discuss. 1) Is it useful to have a forcing opening bid? 2) How big is the handicap not having a forcing opening bid? ad 1) Obviously it is useful to have such a bid, and most systems have such a bid. Acol with Benjamin, SEF = Forum D have even 2 forcing openings. ad 2) Precision and Polish Club designed with a forcing 1♣ opening, without it they are unplayable. The frequency of problems caused by removing the 2♣ bid from SAYC is very low. Many advocate not to use 2♣ with 2 suited hands and there is a chance to handle one suited and balanced strong hands over 1-level openings as well. So the frequency of damage is even lower. Since the 2♣ bid can be utilized for something else, you will benefit from the new use. I doubt that this is good enough for the Bermuda Bowl, but it's a "good enough" agreement with a pickup partner for a few boards.

I hope you were south.

I would have expected 6-4 and not 5-5 after this.

I think the standard definition of the SAYC 2♣ bid is 22+ HCP. You want to extend the meaning of this bid fine, because my point was that a bid with this simple definition is dispensable. If your partnership just ignores the existence of 22+HCP hands, a bad score will hit you once in about a 1000 hands you play. My philosophy would be to accept that I get a bad score, and sometimes I get lucky and get to a decent spot on a different route. I could open 2NT and hope that partner will not pass or I could use a natural 3NT opening. If you reduce the SAYC opening criteria to HCP and suit length close to 41% of the hands you hold in 1rst seat fit one of them. 11.8% of all the hands you get in first seat have a 6 card suit and 5-11 HCP. Of cause you would not open ♠KD ♥Txxxxx ♦xx ♣xx. I you give me your minimum requirements for a weak 2 I'll give you a better percentage.

Lets look at the facts: The chances that a deal contains a hand with 22+ HCP is about 0.33%, about 1 in 300 boards. Only half of those will be on your side (1 in 600 boards). If you hold 22 HCP, the other 3 player share 18 HCP averaging to 6 HCP each. So if your partnership is not having a SAYC 2♣ opening, this will only matter on 1 in 600 boards, and most of the time partner will have 6 HCP to answer over a 1.level opening. So the chance to be damaged by the lack of the strong forcing 2♣ opening is less than 1: 1200. Having e.g. a weak 2 ♣ opening will occur once every 30 boards. So there is a chance that your benefit from 40 weak ♣ openings is bigger than the loss of 1 missed big board.

If you post to the B/I board, potential poster will know that explanations are desired. If you post to the A/E forum, potential poster will assume that you have performed your own analysis already and are locking for opinions.

The published odds are based on truly randomized deals.

E/W were lucky because after ♣ lead they could score 3NT-1. After the 1♥ overcall both E and W bid NT they should have good ♥ stopper for that. So leading ♥Q would not be my first choice.

Of cause you can do without a forcing opening, but you need agreements: 1) About a lot of ways opener can force additional bidding, if he holds 20-37 HCP. Strong hands with 4-5 loser come up about once an evening (20-26 boards). They are more frequent than a strong NT opening. This is frequent enough to teach responder to keep the bidding open for one more round. While you might miss a game each round, you'll easily lose more overbidding on the other hands. 2) You will have to live with a few "pass out" boards, where game is on for your side. There are solutions for all problems. I think Fatunes added the weaker regular openings to the weak two's, to make the 1inSuit openings stronger.

Many hands that fits this description: HCP distribution 22 - 7 - 5 - 6 (Your partnership has 27 HCP, and you won't get an overcall or reopening dbl.) Where opps don't have a weak 2 in 2nd seat. Partner can't raise your opening .

Each bid in your bidding system has 2 useful aspects. The first is of cause it's direct use. The 2nd is it's effect on the other bids. If you have a strong forcing opening in your system, it limits all other openings and allows partner to pass an opening bid. Playing Precision you limit your other bids to 15HCP, Polish Club limits other bids to 17HCP and SAYC puts the limit at 22HCP. Pushing the limit up reduces the frequency of its direct use and reduces the limiting effect on the other bids, making it less useful. So I agree that a simple SAYC 2♣ opening is not very useful, but if you remove it from the system, you will have to do a lot of redefining. Your 1suit openings will now be 12-37 HCP, how strong should responder be?

Bidding up the line has a clear logic in suit length. If you don't bid the cheapest suit of equal length, the bid suit is longer. So 1♠ now and n♦ later would show 5-4. Additionally in case of an uncontested auction and a no fit in a major you can still stop in 1NT. So 1♦ might be a "systemic bid" to avoid a missdescription of your shape. Off cause this should not keep you from using judgment, off cause you can decide to conceal your ♦ length to avoid a missdescription.

As often in bridge matters this is a question of agreements and style. Simply bidding "up the line" (are you playing Acol?), if done minor over minor, leaves the 1M and 2M bids to opps, this is putting you in a bad position in competitive auctions. In my regular partnership our style is to prefer NT to minor contracts. So if partner opens 1♣ I will usually rebid 1NT, if I don't have a 4cM. So my 1♦ bid promises a 4cM. If opps bid a major over my 1♦ bid, partner can usually expect me to have the other major, if opps have a fit. As a side effect this method makes it difficult for opps to bid their major at the 1-level or the "weak jump" to the 2-level. Of cause Walsh and other treatments suggested here will work too.

Obviously you can't just ban a user by his ID, because he could just get a new ID. Obviously you can't ban a user by his IP, because people who dial into the internet get a different IP each time they connect. So one has to exclude the computers used to enforce a ban.